Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Voodoo

Have a Question? V3

Recommended Posts

Ned Bingham
13 hours ago, NaidRaida said:

The mad man will also try to kill with a spoon, even if you ban all guns. So the question is not how to ban guns, it's more like how to ban the mad man.

If I were a madman and had decided to "do" a school or workplace I think I'd attempt it with a gun rather than a spoon, or even a full canteen of cutlery.

 

You can only ban madmen will pills or therapy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trip

Yeah - how many people can you kill with a spoon in under a minute?  I'm willing to reduce the quantity of deaths by only allowing death by spoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NaidRaida

Haha, don't take this word for word. But I think you undestand the essence of what I said (it's the finger which kills, not the spoon... ehm, the trigger). :monocle:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Recommended

Sorry if this is considered 'intruding' on the topic, and if I'm not exactly on topic here, but I find it interesting how Guns have been brought up here, as recently I've been doing nothing but watching Gun videos and anything 2a. I was thinking of asking about this on here a few days ago but I figured it would have been brought up more times than I can count, but out of interest (And this can be considered a question here), how many people here are pro-gun, and how many of you are anti-gun?

 

I ask this because recently I've spoken to my Grandad about what he thought of guns and how heavily regulated they are over here in the UK (And for those unaware, it is possible to legally own a firearm over here, though you have to go through a lot just to own one, and to my knowledge there's only certain types of firearms you may own. Plus you can't carry here).

 

My Grandad believes it's a good thing the UK are very restrictive of firearm possession, and that it's crazy the US is the way it is with the 2nd amendment. Personally, I think the 2nd amendment is one of the best things for a country to have, and if you ask me, the best means of personal protection. Add this with the ability to carry, and that gives the potential to even prevent certain criminal activities.

 

I read through some of the posts earlier and I'm sure someone brought up gun-free zones, which personally I think is a load of nonsense, after all, that does nothing but affect good citizens and cause them a bit of hassel. where as for a person that's freely walking around with nefarious intent, well a sign saying 'gun-free zone' won't make them bat an eyelid.

 

Personally I'd be all for there being no gun-free zones, or at the very least, if there must be a gun-free zone, there should be measures taken to ensure no person enters the area with a firearm, e.g. Metal detectors. Obviously it would be much less hassel and time for there to simply be no gun-free zones, but that's if they really want to have a gun-free zone.

 

I also would agree teachers should be armed, though I'm told I'm crazy even thinking that.

 

I'd even say guns can save way more lives than they can take. At least criminal activity (In my eyes) would not change much at all if it became illegal to carry or even own firearms. Infact I'd go as far to say criminal activity would increase as criminals would know the citizens around them won't be armed with a gun, therefore they'd be much less hesitant in committing a crime. In there mind it would be far less of a risk to them.

 

Well that's just my thoughts on them, but hey, I'm only a British person that doesn't have this right, so what do I know. Anyway I've only ever spoken to 1 person about firearms so I'm just generally interested in what the folks here think about this.

 

By the way when I mention crime, I'm not generally talking gun crime, I'm talking criminal activity in general; Whether a crime was committed with a gun, knife, vehicle, etc, criminal activity is the important aspect to look at rather than method (If people are making an argument over how bad crime is, we're talking in general, not just gun crime).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rhoda

I'm going to be as brief as possible here. I dislike gun culture. I think the UK does just fine as it is, because things are volatile and dangerous enough at the moment without handing out firearms. People are generally lunatics. It's always the few that ruin it for the many, so for every one person that would carry a gun sensibly, there's ten others that would think nothing of opening fire on somebody on a night out after a few tins of warm Red Stripe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trip
4 hours ago, NaidRaida said:

Haha, don't take this word for word. But I think you undestand the essence of what I said (it's the finger which kills, not the spoon... ehm, the trigger). :monocle:

 

I understand the essence.  I have a couple of far right gun friends to argue this point with.    Not every mentally unstable person gets their gun(s) at a gun store.  The kid who killed all the children in Sandy Hook wouldn't be granted a gun, but his mother sure was and there was nothing stopping him from using her guns.

 

I've never accepted the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line when it comes to gun deaths.  At this point there are so many gun deaths that minimizing the number might be a path we have to follow if we want to start reducing the number gun deaths in the states.

 

My point is more towards we need to regulate the types of guns everyday citizens can have.   

 

The government has stepped in on health issues like trans fats and have enacted laws that control civilian access to trans fats... because they care about our health and wellbeing.  I can no longer get a good bucket of fried chicken but I could go out tomorrow and get an assult rifle that has the ability to kill multiplayer people in seconds...seconds.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ṼirulenⱦEqừinox
7 hours ago, trip said:

Yeah - how many people can you kill with a spoon in under a minute?  I'm willing to reduce the quantity of deaths by only allowing death by spoon.

You coukd kill a lot of people in under a minute with a spoon

 

 

 

 

....Buuuut you’ll have to turn it into a shankn by edgeing the handle down to a sharp point and aim for the vital organs but chances of that before being shot dead by police is slim.

Edited by ṼirulenⱦEqừinox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Recommended
12 hours ago, Rhoda said:

I'm going to be as brief as possible here. I dislike gun culture. I think the UK does just fine as it is, because things are volatile and dangerous enough at the moment without handing out firearms. People are generally lunatics. It's always the few that ruin it for the many, so for every one person that would carry a gun sensibly, there's ten others that would think nothing of opening fire on somebody on a night out after a few tins of warm Red Stripe.

Yeah I see your point, though I cannot help but disagree to an amount. Thing we need to remember is guns don't make people bad. Same with road vehicles; Doesn't make a person bad or make them do bad things with them, bad people just use them. It's not like firearms are freely handed out legally, either. Sure it's not mission impossible, but it's not simple either.

 

I believe it takes a background check with the FBI to legally walk out the shop with a gun, and I'm informed even if you was involved in something like domestic violence, that there could be enough to deny you of legally owning a firearm. Sure there is that small percentage of people with nefarious intent that could pass that and legally obtain one, but that percentage ain't as big as one might think.

 

Also the way you say for every 1 in 10 people that carry, only one would be sensible and not open fire on others... that's just ludicrous to think that. I don't think anyone would leave their house if that was the case. That would just be total hysteria. Even if we're talking just generally unresponsable people, not necessarily criminals, but I don't even believe such folk would have had what it takes to not only legally buy their gun, but also obtain a carry permit for it. If they was really that bad to a point where they'd commit such an act, those are the people that probably wouldn't be able to get to a point where they could legally own and carry a firearm in the first place.

 

How I look at it overall, is you have good people, and bad people. It's simple, and I have enough faith in humanity to say there's tons more good people than there are bad. If you ask me, the bad people don't fit in with society, and they shouldn't be on the streets in the first place. If they want to go around killing people, gun control or not, they'll do it. Even if one believes it would be harder for a criminal to commit a crime without a gun, I disagree. Knives, vehicles, whatever. And hey, the UK ain't that much better, trust me. We even had a recent stabbing locally; A person walks into a shop, attacked someone with a knife, walked out and hasn't even been caught yet.

 

Take a look at the attack that was done with a truck in France. What was it? 86 killed by a single person in a truck; 400+ Injured? That's f***ing appalling. 1 Person in a truck we're talking. Point is, people say guns are bad and need to be banned because bad people do bad things with them. Well with that logic, wouldn't you say it's fair to ban cars and trucks? Because bad people do bad things with those too. Enforcing gun control ain't stopping these assholes.

 

From what I've seen, Guns save way more lives than that which is taken because of them. There's nothing wrong with the gun community or culture at all. If you ask me, criminals do not represent gun culture, they represent violence and terrorism. These people shouldn't be on the streets.

 

I understand the essence. I have a couple of far right gun friends to argue this point with. Not every mentally unstable person gets their gun(s) at a gun store. The kid who killed all the children in Sandy Hook wouldn't be granted a gun, but his mother sure was and there was nothing stopping him from using her guns.

Even if we take this here as an example. Can you see what the real problem here is? Irresponsible gun ownership and bad parenting; The type of person that really shouldn't legally own a firearm.

 

If you ask me when it comes to gun rights and what my stance on guns is. I say guns ain't the problem, mental health is, and I'm willing to bet the amount of people that suffer from mental health is a lot higher in the US than somewhere like the UK. If people really want to lower crime (Because you will never be able to abolish crime), then look at mental health, not tools that can otherwise be used to kill people with. Gun control is nothing more than a band aid, and if you ask me, it'll do much more harm than good.

 

Lets not forget people that use guns for hunting, sports, recreational, and even those that like collecting guns. It'll give them a hard time too. We're talking your right and means of maintaining your freedoms.

 

Sorry to go on about this. I sometimes drop by the forums because I work too much to have friends :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spectre07
2 minutes ago, Recommended said:

people that use guns for hunting

*a cowardly attack on a helpless victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
3 hours ago, Recommended said:

I believe it takes a background check with the FBI to legally walk out the shop with a gun

Quite aside from how variable the quality of these checks can be (several of the recent mass shooting incidents in the US involved individuals who had incorrectly passed background checks) private sales and straw purchasing make the checks trivially easy to avoid entirely.

 

3 hours ago, Recommended said:

even if you was involved in something like domestic violence, that there could be enough to deny you of legally owning a firearm

In certain states and in certain cases there are rules in place to try and prevent perpetrators of domestic violence that don't have criminal convictions from obtaining new firearms. The problem is that there's seldom any powers to seize existing weapons from people with a history of familial violence. In most countries that run firearm licensing schemes, that's the first thing that's done on an allegation of this nature.

 

3 hours ago, Recommended said:

Point is, people say guns are bad and need to be banned

Nobody's really saying that, though. Restricted only to people who undergo proper checks, licensing and have to pass some kind of mandatory training? That's just common sense.

Almost all "pro-firearm" arguments are posited on the assumption that all people who are critical of US firearm legislation as it currently stands want to "ban guns". In reality, almost none of them do.

 

3 hours ago, Recommended said:

From what I've seen, Guns save way more lives than that which is taken because of them.

In what context? The total deaths in the US as a result of firearm violence per annum are a fairly clear an inarguable statistic. Notwithstanding the challenge of even defining when a firearm saves a life, it's fairly unlikely to come close to the instances in which they are involved in taking them.

Logically, if the balance were on the side of protection, you would expect firearm owners to have a lower homicide rate than that of non firearm owners. In reality, in the inverse is true- merely being a firearm owner already makes you statically more likely to be murdered than a non-firearm owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham
18 hours ago, Recommended said:

...

I'd even say guns can save way more lives than they can take. At least criminal activity (In my eyes) would not change much at all if it became illegal to carry or even own firearms. Infact I'd go as far to say criminal activity would increase as criminals would know the citizens around them won't be armed with a gun, therefore they'd be much less hesitant in committing a crime. In there mind it would be far less of a risk to them.

...

it's the availability of firearms that makes it so easy to kill people. Killing with a knife is so messy, up close and personal that it makes it the less popular choice, despite the fact that everyone owns at least one kitchen knife.  The omnipresence of the gun in US media culture probably has a strong influence too.  Can you imagine cowboy and gangster movies where everyone had to knife each other to death?  Too personal and too gruesome .

 

The old "Protection from bad guys with guns" argument is lame.  You want a gun to protect yourself from someone else with a gun?  Why not have no guns in the first place?  Second argument, "The bad guys would still find a way to get a gun".  Yes they would because all the guns wouldn't  disappear overnight.  It would take time, just as it took time to build up the gun culture in the first place.

 

US citizens don't have guns to protect themselves in the main.  They have them because of tradition, and culture, and the movies, and cause it makes them feel manly, and cause they're fun to shoot.  That's my smug opinion anyway, writing from the largely gun-free UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Recommended

*a cowardly attack on a helpless victim.


Hunting ain't just a sport, though. In some cases it can be pest control for farmers, dealing with local dangerous animals, it's even great for population control. Most of the time when it comes to hunting for sport, it does actually help with controlling the population of certain animals.

 

You hear how life on this planet works in a way to help maitain an ecosystem; e.g. Wolves hunt Elk, Moose, Caribou, etc, which not only keeps them alive, but prevents an overpopulation of said animals which otherwise if not maintained could drastically effect the ecosystem, and I like to see that people that hunt also contribute to this.

 

There's most likely many great points you can hear from actual hunters, though, so you could ask them on if it's right or wrong to hunt.

 

Quite aside from how variable the quality of these checks can be (several of the recent mass shooting incidents in the US involved individuals who had incorrectly passed background checks) private sales and straw purchasing make the checks trivially easy to avoid entirely.


In which case these purchases should be considered illegal, which I can totally agree that all purchases of firearms should require some form of background check regardless of source. I believe they use something known as the 'National Instant Criminal Background Check System' or NICS for short, which goes through a series of details relating to the customer, and if you ask me, such a system is indeed adequate.

 

Should only offical gun shops be the only source for purchasing firearms? No it doesn't have to be, but I can totally agree that any place where a firearm can legally be purchased, either from a gun shop, gun show, or any other offically established platform, they should properly use an NICS check. For the honest person that either wants to protect themself or their home and family, or someone that owns firearms for recreational purposes, this is both an adequate and fair system. It doesn't need to be enforced any more or less than it is.

 

Will it stop bad people from legally buying and owning a gun? Not in all cases, that I can agree with. Criminals and people that are out to commit acts of violence and any other form of crime will always find their way around the law, but this should never affect the commonfolk from the right to bare arms. It should never bring in new gun control laws such as bans on bump stocks (Which a person that has even the most basic skills in carpentry could make anyway), or mags being no more than 10 rounds (Which again, any criminal that's serious enough to go on a rampage could modify).

 

In certain states and in certain cases there are rules in place to try and prevent perpetrators of domestic violence that don't have criminal convictions from obtaining new firearms. The problem is that there's seldom any powers to seize existing weapons from people with a history of familial violence. In most countries that run firearm licensing schemes, that's the first thing that's done on an allegation of this nature.


Yeah that's true, but you've got to remember the USA is a vastly populated country where firearms are pretty abundant. The United States is one of the top 10 populated countries in the world, being 3rd just below China and India; China having insanely strict gun laws, and India which is no easy feat in gaining legal possession of a firearm. It wouldn't be easy to assemble a task force to carry out gun confiscation plans for such people in the US compared to those countries for example.

 

Would I agree if they did seize all current guns from people that have had a history in domestic violence? Personally, I wouldn't be for or against it. I honestly don't think it would be worth the effort. I couldn't see that having any effect on crime rates either.

 

Nobody's really saying that, though. Restricted only to people who undergo proper checks, licensing and have to pass some kind of mandatory training? That's just common sense.



Almost all "pro-firearm" arguments are posited on the assumption that all people who are critical of US firearm legislation as it currently stands want to "ban guns". In reality, almost none of them do.


People actually do say that, though. You've never heard anyone talk about gun laws and someone that is anti-gun comes out and says they should ban all guns? You've never heard that at all? Because I've heard a fair amount of folk say those exact lines, and ironically these are the same people that when confronted on why, they have a habit of changing that and going on to say "Well... maybe not all guns".

 

Maybe no one has said that here on this forums, but I'm talking the usual pro-gun vs anti-gun arguments here, and some anti-gunners will say that, maybe even the majority would say that, and I've only ever truly had 1 actual discussion on firearm laws, which was with my grandad; Even I've heard that sentence being said. Whether these people truly want them all banned, well I can't say, I don't know what's really on a persons mind, but you may and will hear those comments.

 

It's interesting you brought up common sense, too, because this is the same common sense that believes "Assault Rifles" or "Assault Weapons" can be issued to civilians. The same common sense that can't tell the difference between semi-auto and full-auto. Because it's a 'big black scary assault gun that shouldn't be on the streets'.

 

 

There's actually people in the US that thinks the 'AR' in AR-15 stands for 'Assault Rifle' when it actually means 'ArmaLite' - The name of a company that originally created that particular rifle; A Semi-automatic weapon, by the way, not fully automatic as some media sources would have you believe. I'm pretty sure you already knew that, but being honest, how many others knew this before reading this post?

 

Now I'm not going against you on this next statement here. I also fully agree to their being proper checks and permits. As for Mandatory training? Not necessarily. Sure a new firearm owner should learn how their gun works. There should be and I believe there are instructions that comes with buying a firearm. But training can also mean extra money ontop of an already expensive tool, and that would mean even more regulating to make sure someone gets the right and long enough training.

 

I believe every firearm owner should definitly consider getting some training and going down to a range to also test to make sure that firearm works as it should, but if we're talking someone that just wants to get one for home defense. The time needed to legally own a gun should be as short as possible.

 

In what context? The total deaths in the US as a result of firearm violence per annum are a fairly clear an inarguable statistic. Notwithstanding the challenge of even defining when a firearm saves a life, it's fairly unlikely to come close to the instances in which they are involved in taking them.



Logically, if the balance were on the side of protection, you would expect firearm owners to have a lower homicide rate than that of non firearm owners. In reality, in the inverse is true- merely being a firearm owner already makes you statically more likely to be murdered than a non-firearm owner.


May I check your sources? Honestly if I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it.

 

My main source is Guns and Crime Prevention and Crime and Guns

 

I've linked 2 very easy to read pages that anyone can check through. These are for anyone interested.

 

Focusing on your statement: "Merely being a firearm owner already makes you statically more likely to be murdered than a non-firearm owner." because all criminals now have the power to read minds? I assume you mean when firearms are drawn during armed criminal activities?

 

Sure, a good person drawing their gun does make them more of a target for an armed criminal, but I can guess that either the criminal in question also values their own life and wouldn't want to take that risk, meaning no shots would be fired, or if they're crazy enough to a point where they'll freely gun down people, they most likely would be stopped by a good person with a gun, even if said good person gets shot themself, it can mean preventing further casualties.

 

But you know, more legal good citizens with guns vs 1 bad person with a gun would definitly help in combating such incidents, hence more support for gun ownership.

 

Ultimately what I'm saying is while there are bad people out their that use guns to commit acts of violence, there are more good people that use them to help with their own survival. In a lot of cases, no one gets hurt. Gun control and gun free zones doesn't make a safe environment for good people, it makes a safe environment for bad people. You take guns away and you still have violence, and I'm sure you'll have many more cases of rape, burglary, and homicide.

 

You even suggested it's easier to define when a gun takes a life instead of saving one, which is a little unfair due to the fact you have solid prove of deaths due to firearms. Where as it's not clear to say that a firearm saved peoples lives when a lot of times a shot may not even have been fired, or at the very least only a warning shot is fired to de-escalate the situation.

 

Take Sutherland Springs church shooting. We've all heard about this, right? A shooter opens fire at people in a church, and a fair few of people lost their life due it to, and that's something that could have gone on for god knows how long, but as soon as a good person with a gun started exchanging fire with them, there were no more further casualties apart from the shooter himself which is now permanetly out of society. That incident could have been far worse than it was.

 

It's the availability of firearms that makes it so easy to kill people. Killing with a knife is so messy, up close and personal that it makes it the less popular choice, despite the fact that everyone owns at least one kitchen knife.  The omnipresence of the gun in US media culture probably has a strong influence too. Can you imagine cowboy and gangster movies where everyone had to knife each other to death? Too personal and too gruesome.


I kind of find this paragraph somewhat ironic. Check this out: Methods of homicide

 

Now notice how the leading method here is handguns. That's 6,603 homicides done with handguns (Different sources may show slightly different values, but they're all generally the same). Now look at rifles and shotguns. That's only 532 combine, not even half that of knife crime. Infact knife and other 'cutting instruments' is almost 3 times more than rifles and shotguns. Heck, unarmed murders is even more than rifles and shotguns.

 

So what is going on here? Well criminals will generally always go for what is easier to obtain, what's the cheapest, and what is the best for concealment. How many of those can you bet are illegal ownership? I'll put my money on at least 50% are illegal possessions.

 

Do you believe making it harder to own a gun, creating more so called 'Gun-free zones', or even banning them (For example) would change much with those figures? Because if they can't get them legally, they'll go illegal. We all agree to this idea. The balance of good people with guns compared to bad people with guns would have a much greater difference in favor of the bad folk.

 

Thus I stand by my previous statement that gun control and gun-free zones only hurt the honest citizens, and with more criminals walking around with god knows what under their shirts, I feel confident saying more sh*t will go down with less people to prevent it. More people being raped. More homes being vulnerable, etc.

 

I kind of like the little example you gave of guns vs knives. "Too personal and too gruesome". You know this may be redundant me saying this, but I honestly would prefer to be shot with a gun than mutilated with a knife or sword. But that's just me, at least guns are cleaner. I can bet knife crime would sky-rocket if guns were off the streets too.

 

The old "Protection from bad guys with guns" argument is lame.  You want a gun to protect yourself from someone else with a gun?  Why not have no guns in the first place?  Second argument, "The bad guys would still find a way to get a gun".  Yes they would because all the guns wouldn't  disappear overnight.  It would take time, just as it took time to build up the gun culture in the first place.


No guns, huh? So screw hunting, screw shooting sports, screw recreational shooting, screw gun collectors, and screw the cops, because if you say no guns, that would include law enforcement. Heck the freedoms of the American people; That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment.

 

The 2nd amendment ain't just there for people to protect themselves with firearms from criminals. It's also there to maintain the freedoms and means to prevent a tyrannical government.

 

You know what the militia is, right? It's the people, the armed people. You limit and/or take the guns from the people, and then what would happen if a tyrant stepped into office? You've seen what the situation is with North Korea? That's something that would never happen as long as the 1st and 2nd amendment are in place. Do people really want that to happen? Don't think they do.

 

oh and all guns wouldn't disappear, period. Maybe not even half. 10 years, 100 years, give it 1000 years. It's an invention that will keep on being invented; Legally and illegally.

 

US citizens don't have guns to protect themselves in the main. They have them because of tradition, and culture, and the movies, and cause it makes them feel manly, and cause they're fun to shoot. That's my smug opinion anyway, writing from the largely gun-free UK.


Tradition and culture. Yeah as I've said above. And what's that culture and history based on? Is it not about freedom? You know that's the whole point of all the US amendments, right?

 

You know the US has one of the best support for freedom of speech compared to a lot of countries? Maybe even the best. Then there's fair treatment for the LGBT community, nationality, religion, etc. You have a right if you fall under any of those in the US, and you have the right to express things such as your religion without being jailed or facing legal problems. Sure, SJW's would tell you otherwise, but look into it and they're generally full of sh*t.

 

The USA is a f***ing amazing country. Room for improvement? There always will be. No country is all rainbows and unicorns, and never will be.

 

Just to finish off here, and I know I've rambled on a lot already, but this ain't just about the right to protect yourselves. Yes it is very important to defend yourself from any threat that comes your way, because it's a Human given right to have the means to ensure your survival. Guns are a proven way to maintain your survival. You can't prevent all violence, you never will. Gun control will not help towards combating criminal activities and may even make it worse.

 

Personally I'd say to all of you that live in the states, whether you're pro-gun, or you are unsure about it, look into your amendments and support them however you can. I'd say the 1st and 2nd amendments are probably the most important as they help maintain your country and it's freedom.

 

I honestly feel the education on firearms is really poor, and the media don't exactly help with that considering the misinformation over firearm incidents.

 

If you think I'm full of sh*t, at least go ahead and educate yourself with the 2nd amendment and firearms. If you don't want the hassel of going through websites, then there's even plently of fine gun owners on YouTube such as: Colion Noir, Liberty Doll, Hickok45, The Yankee Marshal (As strange he can be), etc that will present valid points. And if you're still not satisfied, then research the information they give.

 

I ain't no expert nor do I claim to be. I don't even own a firearm, so see what real firearm owners have to say on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Billy Russo

.

Edited by Billy Russo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cameron Star

Jeez Louise we get it, you don't play games anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Billy Russo
6 minutes ago, Cameron Star said:

Jeez Louise we get it, you don't play games anymore.

Whisper-Sloth.jpg

 

I don't play games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rhoda

I've never been a big player of video games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
3 hours ago, Recommended said:

In which case these purchases should be considered illegal, which I can totally agree that all purchases of firearms should require some form of background check regardless of source.

We're in agreement that this is common sense, but most firearms rights advocates in the US fundamentally disagree with the notion of background checks for private sales, or legislation designed to prevent straw purchases.

Tracking and tracing of individually owned firearms without a registration system or without databases is always going to be challenging- even if legislation were introduced which made it illegal for private citizens to sell firearms without, say, NFA dealerships acting as a proxy or authorising body in the sale, it would be hard to enforce.

 

3 hours ago, Recommended said:

Criminals and people that are out to commit acts of violence and any other form of crime will always find their way around the law

Narratives like this somewhat misrepresent the facts around the use of firearms in crime, even in the US. Having systems to account for individuals who actively pursue access to firearms to enable crime is exceptionally difficult for the reasons you lay out, but that's not really the use case that firearms legislation elsewhere in the world is designed to deal with. Registration and licensing make dealing with individuals who are circumstantial risk- such as violent spouses- vastly easier; they also tend to limit direct access to firearms "in the heat of the moment" which reduces the likelihood of their use. Self-defence is usually not a consideration (in fact, use of firearms in self-defence is explicitly illegal except in the most specific circumstances in a number of countries including the UK). More than anything, they're about instilling a culture in which firearms are treated with respect, stored and handled properly, and used safely and proportionately. Other developed countries with firearms ownership rates in the same ballpark as that of the US have dramatically lower rates of firearm homicide, suicide and accidental death rates precisely because their regulatory systems prevent the same lackadaisical attitude to firearms that the "rights, not privileges" approach of the US system encourages. 

 

3 hours ago, Recommended said:

The United States is one of the top 10 populated countries in the world

This is kind of a moot point, given the issue isn't necessarily the size of the population but its dispersal. The US conducts, perfectly happily and without too much complaint, a great deal of other federally or state-managed activities that, in terms of the resources required, would not be fundamentally more challenging than the process of simply identifying and recording firearm possession. 

 

4 hours ago, Recommended said:

Would I agree if they did seize all current guns from people that have had a history in domestic violence? Personally, I wouldn't be for or against it. I honestly don't think it would be worth the effort. I couldn't see that having any effect on crime rates either.

Roughly 22% of all murders committed in the US are familicide of some description. That's nearly one quarter of all murders.

The percentage of murders in the US that are committed using firearms floats around 80-85%, depending on year.

Studies have shown that access to a firearm make it around five times more likely that a domestic abuser will murder a family member.

 

Do you genuinely believe that mandatory removal of firearms owned by people with histories of domestic violence would have no impact on crime rates?

 

4 hours ago, Recommended said:

People actually do say that, though.

They haven't in this conversation; more generally it is an extreme fringe position, far less heavily represented than the firearm lobby pretends is the case.

 

4 hours ago, Recommended said:

May I check your sources? Honestly if I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it.

I'd just like to point out that the site you're quoting there, despite its claims of being non-partisan, is anything but.

The first claim, that there are 2.5 million defensive firearm uses per year in the US, is a manifestation of this bias.

  • Firsty, the figure in the actual paper they cite isn't 2.5 million, it's between 1 million and 2.5 million.
  • Secondly, the Kleck paper from which they draw that statistic has been discredited (herehereherehere and here to name but a few). Basically, the entire structure of his study, from the sample size, to the use of self-reporting. In fact, so ludicrous are his statistics, that more than 100% of burglaries were responded to by armed civilians

Some effort has been made by studies such as the National Crime Victimisation Survey to identify defensive use of firearms- which according to these studies is recorded as around 85,000 instances a year. To put that into perspective, 162,000 firearms- approximately twice this number, were reported stolen per year on average over the same 5-year period.

 

This is an excellent meta-analysis of numerous academic papers examining correlations between firearm ownership and violent death as a result of firearms.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, in both categories examined- suicide, and becoming a victim of homicide, there is a clear positive risk correlation with firearm ownership- that is, you are more likely to die in one of those two ways than non-firearm owners.

 

4 hours ago, Recommended said:

But you know, more legal good citizens with guns vs 1 bad person with a gun would definitly help in combating such incidents, hence more support for gun ownership.

This is fundamentally false. In fact, according to the FBI, of the 160 active shooter situations assessed between 2000 and 2013, only one was stopped by an armed civilian. Twenty-one were stopped by unarmed civilians. 

 

4 hours ago, Recommended said:

Now notice how the leading method here is handguns

The mistake you're making here is glossing over the nearly three thousand incidents involving firearms where the firearm type is not defined.

Nobody disagrees with the notion that handguns are the most common murder weapon in the US. 

 

4 hours ago, Recommended said:

I feel confident saying [that with gun control and gun free zones] more sh*t will go down with less people to prevent it.

Why do you feel confident in saying this? It has no empirical basis in fact.

 

4 hours ago, Recommended said:

I kind of like the little example you gave of guns vs knives. "Too personal and too gruesome". You know this may be redundant me saying this, but I honestly would prefer to be shot with a gun than mutilated with a knife or sword. But that's just me, at least guns are cleaner.

I think you're missing the point here. It's not "personal and gruesome" for the victim, it's for the perpetrator.

 

That said, firearms are vastly nastier in terms of the damage they do to people and most definitely much less "clean" than bladed weapon injuries.

With blades, you seldom have to worry about fragmentation- but most personal defence ammunition expands or fragments. Lots of ragged wound channels, lots of increase risk of hitting vital organs.

Then there's the hydrostatic effect- essentially a shockwave created in soft tissue which transmits impact force to other parts of the body, creating remote wounding as well.

 

The figures are stark. Approximately 33% of shooting victims die of their wounds. Only seven percent of stabbing victims do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham
On 11/17/2019 at 6:41 PM, Billy Russo said:

Whisper-Sloth.jpg

What's that you're saying Grandma?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Billy Russo

What hobbies does everyone like to do? Just looking for some more ideas to shake-up my routine and get out of my shell a bit more. Things I currently enjoy doing:

 

- Hiking/Walking basically anywhere. I walk pretty much everyday, sometimes I walk home from work. I enjoy it a lot.

- Watching Movies/TV Shows. 

- Writing (Although admittedly much less these days)

- Colouring.

- Reading

 

Any suggestions? I thought maybe joining a walking club or book club, but wouldn't know where to start in my area. Would be scared at meeting new people, but I have to do it at some point.

 

Also, is GTA Forums a hobby? Asking for a friend. :harrumph:

Edited by Billy Russo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spectre07

^

 

- Photography: You don't need a DSLR to have an interest in photography; just use your phone camera to get started.

 

- Any type of hobby that lets you build something.

Edited by spectre07

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tacymist

Hiking's nice. Ever go fishing? I guess it's kinda my hobby, although I haven't gone fishing since last year when I went camping. My first year fishing was the best, caught so many fish it was crazy. After that I barely caught anything though. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spectre07
1 hour ago, Billy Russo said:

What hobbies does everyone like to do? Just looking for some more ideas to shake-up my routine and get out of my shell a bit more. Things I currently enjoy doing:

 

You can mix writing and reading with learning an instrument to improve more and more, colouring with painting to appreciate more the art and rollerblading/skating or riding a bike is very fun too like walking and hiking.

Edited by spectre07

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Standard Deluxe 59
1 hour ago, Billy Russo said:

What hobbies does everyone like to do? Just looking for some more ideas to shake-up my routine and get out of my shell a bit more. Things I currently enjoy doing:

Model railroading, though I more made a city with trains running around in it. I think the downtown skyline of mine takes more attention than the trains and elevated tram until you notice the lights going around and poking out from between the buildings. Unfortunately it's rather expensive if you want the better quality (German, American and Japanese made) stuff like I do, and I don't even use actual n scale vehicles, I use micro machines and the like because a two pack of n scale cars could easily cost $7. Average price of the structures I have is probably about $30, trains and track  combined were probably about $1,000 and another couple hundred dollars for the micro sized cars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tacymist

They still make micro machines? I had a big collection of those when I was a kid, didn't know they were still around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spectre07
31 minutes ago, Standard Deluxe 59 said:

Model railroading, though I more made a city with trains running around in it. I think the downtown skyline of mine takes more attention than the trains and elevated tram until you notice the lights going around and poking out from between the buildings. Unfortunately it's rather expensive if you want the better quality (German, American and Japanese made)  

Flea market is always the first option to collect and find those "expensive" things, I mean if you want it quickly and pristine condition sure is a lot of money, but the used and scuffy show the real age, not about missing parts, lol.

 

Collecting Hot Wheels, Matchbox, Tomica and all that stuff was great and I found many old stuff but I had the fear don't having anyone to pass the torch and I sold them to the right people.

Edited by spectre07

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Standard Deluxe 59
42 minutes ago, Tacymist said:

They still make micro machines? I had a big collection of those when I was a kid, didn't know they were still around.

Unfortunately no, the ones I have are some from when I was younger and others I bought off eBay.

 

32 minutes ago, spectre07 said:

Flea market is always the first option to collect and find those "expensive" things, I mean if you want it quickly and pristine condition sure is a lot of money, but the used and scuffy show the real age, not about missing parts, lol.

 

Collecting Hot Wheels, Matchbox, Tomica and all that stuff was great and I found many old stuff but I had the fear don't having anyone to pass the torch and I sold them to the right people.

I gotta look at the flea markets around here, I can probably find more micro cars at one. Model train shows are good for finding used structures and such for relatively reasonable prices too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tacymist

Ah damn. I used to have a little micro town I could drive them around in too. It was awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Standard Deluxe 59
41 minutes ago, Tacymist said:

Ah damn. I used to have a little micro town I could drive them around in too. It was awesome.

I have the RV that folded out, well I have it somewhere at least. But now I have a much bigger scale city to drive the cars around in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Billy Russo
12 hours ago, Tacymist said:

Hiking's nice. Ever go fishing? I guess it's kinda my hobby, although I haven't gone fishing since last year when I went camping. My first year fishing was the best, caught so many fish it was crazy. After that I barely caught anything though. lol

I went fishing once with one of my family members and I didn't enjoy it very much. I just think there's way too much downtime. I'd rather be doing something which is why I usually prefer hiking, and fishing doesn't really stimulate my brain at all. I can see why people enjoy it though, it's quiet and relaxing.

 

12 hours ago, spectre07 said:

You can mix writing and reading with learning an instrument to improve more and more, colouring with painting to appreciate more the art and rollerblading/skating or riding a bike is very fun too like walking and hiking.

Good ideas. I've always wanted to get better at Painting/Drawing, I've never been that good at either but obviously it's not just something you learn overnight. Never put enough time in to appreciate it, rather than the occasional sketch and stuff like that. I do like riding a bike but I've always been scared of going down hills, because I feel less in control and where I live it's pretty hilly. I expect I would get over that fear eventually, but I used to be petrified back in the day of going down a steep hill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tacymist

errrr.. What happened to Billy Russo's account? o_O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.